Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps: a late report from a UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative workshop and a few updates from recent developments

Purpose

The paper provides a late report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative workshop “Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)—where we are, trends, and next steps;” it embeds this report into recent development with regard to the envisaged development of global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators and related methodologies.

Methods

The document is the output of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s workshop on “Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps.” The presentations and discussions held during the workshop reviewed the first two phases of the Life Cycle Initiative and provided an overview of current LCIA activities being conducted by the Initiative, governments and academia, as well as corporate approaches. The outcomes of the workshop are reflected in light of the implementation of the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative.

Results

The range of views provided during the workshop indicated different user needs, with regards to, amongst other things, the required complexity of the LCIA methodology, associated costs, and the selection of LCIA categories depending on environmental priorities. The workshop’s results signified a number of potential focus areas for Phase 3 of the Initiative, including capacity building efforts concerning LCIA in developing countries and emerging economies, the preparation of training materials on LCIA, the production of global guidance on LCIA, and the potential development of a broader sustainability indicators framework.

Conclusions

These suggestions have been taken into account in the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative in two flagship projects, one on global capability development on life cycle approaches and the other on global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators. In the context of the latter project, first activities are being organized and planned. Moreover, UNEP has included the recommendations in its Rio + 20 Voluntary Commitments: UNEP and SETAC through the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative commit to facilitate improved access to good quality life cycle data and databases as well as expanded use of key environmental indicators that allows the measurement and monitoring of progress towards the environmental sustainability of selected product chains.     

User needs analysis and development of priorities for life cycle impact assessment

The development of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative started with a global survey of LCA practitioners. There were 91 LCIA-specific responses from all global regions. Respondents gave an indication of how they use LCA with respect to both the stage of LCA that they base decisions on (LCI, LCIA or a combination of both) as well as the types of decisions which they support with LCA information. The issues requiring immediate attention within the UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative identified from this User Needs analysis are the need for transparency in the methodology, for scientific confidence and for scientific co-operation as well as the development of a recommended set of factors and methodologies. Of interest is the fact that results from the different regions highlighted the need for different impact categories. Based on this information proposals were made for new impact categories to be included in LCA (and thus LCIA). The LCIA programme aims to enhance the availability of sound LCA data and methods and to deliver guidance on their use. More specifically, it aims to 1) make results and recommendations widely available for users through the creation of a worldwide accessible information system and 2) establish recommended characterisation factors and related methodologies for the different impact categories, possibly consisting of sets at both midpoint and damage level. The work of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has been started within four task forces on 1) LCIA information system and framework, 2) natural resources and land use, 3) toxic impacts, and 4) transboundary impacts. All participants willing to contribute to these efforts are invited to contact the LCIA programme manager or to join the next LCIA workgroup meeting that will take place in at the world SETAC congress in Portland on Thursday 18 November 2004.     

In reply to hertwich & pease, Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 180 — 181, “ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment”

Life Cycle Impact Assessment describes indicators and does not predict actual impacts. The value of an LCA is its comprehensive review of all stages of a product’s life cycle and its synoptic view of all relevant environmental issues. The current version of the 14042 draft describes the uniqueness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment approach which is distinct from other assessment techniques. The wording was designed to help users of the standard understand how and why LCIA is distinct from other assessment methods. In closing, we would like to highlight our opinion that the present document on the level of a DIS is sound, stable and practical within the ISO 14040 series of standards. We do not agree withHertwich & Pease that the present document prevents the use of LCIA. It makes a choice regarding the exclusion of weighting across categories in order to prevent misuse in deriving inappropriate claims. And for characterisation it has achieved a well founded synthesis. In addition, we strongly believe that this standard will stimulate the international scientific discussion of LCA and will substantially contribute to enhanced and more valuable applications of LCA in the future.     

LUCAS - A New LCIA Method Used for a Canadian-Specific Context

Goal, Scope and Background Canadian LCA practitioners currently use European or American methodologies when conducting comprehensive impact assessments, despite the fact that these methods may not be appropriate for Canadian conditions. Due to the lack of suitable models that are currently available, work has been undertaken to develop an LCIA method by adapting existing LCIA models to the Canadian context. This new method allows the characterization of 10 impact categories. Methods This project is strongly based on preliminary outcomes from SETAC recommendations for the best available practices in LCIA. Models from 3 recent LCIA site-dependent methods, EDIP2003, IMPACT2002+ and TRACI, were used in this midpoint Canadian-specific method. Characterization models were chosen based on their level of comprehensiveness, scientific sophistication and the possibility of integrating site-specific values in the models. Results and Discussion All regional and local impact categories in the method are site-differentiated. For aquatic eutrophication, (eco)toxicity and land-use impact categories, regionally-differentiated models taking into account fate and effect were already available: the parameters of these models were modified for the Canadian context. For acidification, aquatic and terrestrial eutrophication, existing models were spatially differentiated for fate: regionalization of the effect factor was also included, based on the level of sensitivity of each ecozone assessed with vulnerability factors. The default spatial resolution selected for this method was Canadian ecozones, which define spaces in an ecologically meaningful way where organisms and their physical environment evolve as a system. For each ecozone, 2334 site-dependent characterization factors have been calculated. Conclusion This LCIA methodology proposes an attractive and useful set of site-dependent characterization factors for the 15 Canadian terrestrial ecozones. Recommendation and Outlook Efforts are being carried out to extend the specificity of some factors used in eutrophication modelization. Finally, the transparency of the methodology will allow to re-calculate site-dependent characterization factors for different regions and for additional substances.     

The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.019

Background

Life cycle assessments have been performed using different methods before the name was coined since about 1970 in several countries of North America and Europe. It was the merit of SETAC to start a standardization process which culminated in the LCA-guidelines ('A code of practice') in 1993. It is the aim of this paper to trace back this and further LCA-related achievements by SETAC on the basis of documents and personal memories. It may be subjective in the selection and weighting of some events, but objectivity is strived for with regard to the whole and, in my view, singular development.

Results and Discussion

Starting 1990 with two workshops in Smuggler's Notch (Vermont) and Leuven (Belgium), SETAC and SETAC Europe organized several workshops during which important topics (framework, impact assessment, data quality, etc.) were treated and published in the form of reports which are still available. The main contribution by CML and its head, Helias Udo de Haes, was a practical method of impact assessment, transforming the formerly more technocratic LCA (energy, resources, waste) into an instrument of environmental assessment of product systems. In addition, important contributions to the allocation problem were made. Starting in 1993, ISO took over the leadership in standardization and SETAC started the famous working groups in North America and Europe, often dealing with the same topics in parallel. Due to the different cultures, the results were frequently complimentary rather than harmonic. The CML-method of LCIA, widely accepted in Europe, had to wait for about 10 years to be accepted at the other side of the Atlantic. It was helpful that SETAC – meanwhile a global organization – looked for a partner in order to implement LCA all over the world. This partner was found in the 'United Nations Environmental Programme' (UNEP) and the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative was officially launched by Klaus Töpfer in Prague in April 2002. SETAC also assumed an important role in communicating LCA via publications: workshop and conference reports, the 'code of practice', working group results and LCA News Letters. The annual meetings offered forums for LCA scientists, practitioners and users, well prepared by the LCA Steering Committee (SETAC Europe) and the LCA Advisory Group (SETAC North America).

Recommendation

. The main recommendation to SETAC is to adhere to LCA as the main environmental assessment tool for products and to expand it to a true sustainability assessment tool by adding Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and a still to be invented 'Social Life Cycle Assessment'. SETAC is to remain the scientific arm within the UNEP/SETAC LC Initiative, without loosing its identity. Working groups should be global rather than regional in the future, as suggested by the SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee at the 2004 World Congress in Portland, Oregon.

     

Comment on the editorial note by Baitz et XXI aliis

Background

The editor of this journal has been waiting for such a contribution of the life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners and users for years, since the last debate of this kind dates back to beginning of the new century. It is remembered as the “Two planets debate” and coincided with the emergence of life cycle management, i.e. the use of life-cycle based methods in industry.

The “Two planets”

This is a metaphor coined at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Europe case studies symposium 2000 and designates the fact that many academic LCA developers and the LCA practitioners seem to live in different spheres. The editorial note by Baitz et al. shows that this seems to be true still today. It is argued that the practitioners do not frequently enough participate in the working groups organized by SETAC, the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative and other international organizations and therefore cannot bring in the practical experience they have acquired in performing “real-life” LCA studies. The new LCIA methods, for instance, are often not accepted by the LCA practitioners and commissioners, since essential aspects were not recognised during method development.

Tentative proposal for a solution

The solution of the problems pointed out in Baitz et al. cannot be to hinder the inhabitants of the academic planet in inventing ingenious new methods for reasons of academic freedom. It is proposed that new methods developed should be tested by practitioners in real-life LCA studies. Data asymmetries in comparative (i.e. most) LCA studies using more demanding methods may shift problems from LCIA to the LCI databases. With regard to the financing of such studies, it should be remembered that practitioners do their living by performing LCAs and other studies and have to calculate a full overhead in addition to the pure working costs.     

Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods

Purpose

The main objective of this study is to expand the discussion about how, and to what extent, the environmental performance is affected by the use of different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) illustrated by the case study of the comparison between environmental impacts of gasoline and ethanol form sugarcane in Brazil.

Methods

The following LCIA methods have been considered in the evaluation: CML 2001, Impact 2002+, EDIP 2003, Eco-indicator 99, TRACI 2, ReCiPe, and Ecological Scarcity 2006. Energy allocation was used to split the environmental burdens between ethanol and surplus electricity generated at the sugarcane mill. The phases of feedstock and (bio)fuel production, distribution, and use are included in system boundaries.

Results and discussion

At the midpoint level, comparison of different LCIA methods showed that ethanol presents lower impacts than gasoline in important categories such as global warming, fossil depletion, and ozone layer depletion. However, ethanol presents higher impacts in acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, and agricultural land use categories. Regarding to single-score indicators, ethanol presented better performance than gasoline using ReCiPe Endpoint LCIA method. Using IMPACT 2002+, Eco-indicator 99, and Ecological Scarcity 2006, higher scores are verified for ethanol, mainly due to the impacts related to particulate emissions and land use impacts.

Conclusions

Although there is a relative agreement on the results regarding equivalent environmental impact categories using different LCIA methods at midpoint level, when single-score indicators are considered, use of different LCIA methods lead to different conclusions. Single-score results also limit the interpretability at endpoint level, as a consequence of small contributions of relevant environmental impact categories weighted in a single-score indicator.     

Ecological Toxicity Methods and Metals. An examination of two case studies (8 pp + 1)

Goal, Scope and Background The Apeldoorn Workshop (April 15th, 2004, Apeldoorn, NL) brought together specialists in LCA and Risk Assessment to discuss current practices and complications of the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) ecological toxicity (ecotox) methodologies for metals. The consensus was that the LCIA methods currently available do not appropriately characterize impacts of metals due to lack of fundamental metals chemistry in the models. A review of five methods available to perform ecotox impact assessment for metals has been prepared to provide Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) practitioners with a better understanding of the current state of the science and potential biases related to metals. The intent is to provide awareness on issues related to ecotox impact assessment. Methods In this paper two case studies, one a copper based product (copper tube), the other a zinc-based product (gutter systems), were selected and examined by applying freshwater ecological toxicity impact models – USES-LCA, Eco-indicator 99 (EI 99), IMPACT 2002, EDIP 97, and CalTOX-ETP. Both studies are recent, comprehensive, cradle-to-gate, and peer-reviewed. The objective is to review the LCIA results in the context of the practical concerns identified by the Apeldoorn Declaration, in particular illustrating any inconsistencies such as chemical characterization coverage, species specificity, and relative contribution to impact results. Results and Discussion The results obtained from all five of the LCIA methods for the copper tube LCI pointed to the same substance as being the most important – copper. This result was obtained despite major fundamental differences between the LCIA methods applied. However, variations of results were found when examining the freshwater ecological toxicity potential of zinc gutter systems. Procedural difficulties and inconsistencies were observed. In part this was due to basic differences in model nomenclature and differences in coverage (IMPACT 2002+ and EDIP 97 contained characterization factors for aluminium that resulted in 90% and 22% contribution to burden respectively, the other three methods did not). Differences were also observed relative to the emissions source compartment. In the case of zinc, air emissions were found to be substantial for some ecotox models, whereas, water emissions results were found to be of issue for others. Conclusions This investigation illustrates the need to proceed with caution when applying LCIA ecotox methodologies to life cycle studies that include metals. Until further improvements are made, the deficiencies should be clearly communicated as part of LCIA reporting. Business or policy decisions should not without further discussion be based solely on the results of the currently available methods for assessing ecotoxicity in LCIA. Outlook The outlook to remedy deficiencies in the ecological toxicity methods is promising. Recently, the LCIA Toxic Impacts Task Force of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has formed a subgroup to address specific issues and guide the work towards establishment of sound characterization factors for metals. Although some measure of precision of estimation of potential impact has been observed, such as in the case of copper, accuracy is also a major concern and should be addressed. Further investigation through controlled experimentation is needed, particularly LCIs composed of a variety of inorganics as well as organics constituents. Support for this activity has come from the scientific community and industry as well. Broader aspects of structure and nomenclature are being collectively addressed by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. These efforts will bring practical solutions to issues of naming conventions and LCI to LCIA flow assignments.     

Ecosystem quality in LCIA: status quo,harmonization, and suggestions for the way forward

Purpose

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are used to assess potential environmental impacts of different products and services. As part of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative flagship project that aims to harmonize indicators of potential environmental impacts, we provide a consensus viewpoint and recommendations for future developments in LCIA related to the ecosystem quality area of protection (AoP). Through our recommendations, we aim to encourage LCIA developments that improve the usefulness and global acceptability of LCIA results.

Methods

We analyze current ecosystem quality metrics and provide recommendations to the LCIA research community for achieving further developments towards comparable and more ecologically relevant metrics addressing ecosystem quality.

Results and discussion

We recommend that LCIA development for ecosystem quality should tend towards species-richness-related metrics, with efforts made towards improved inclusion of ecosystem complexity. Impact indicators—which result from a range of modeling approaches that differ, for example, according to spatial and temporal scale, taxonomic coverage, and whether the indicator produces a relative or absolute measure of loss—should be framed to facilitate their final expression in a single, aggregated metric. This would also improve comparability with other LCIA damage-level indicators. Furthermore, to allow for a broader inclusion of ecosystem quality perspectives, the development of an additional indicator related to ecosystem function is recommended. Having two complementary metrics would give a broader coverage of ecosystem attributes while remaining simple enough to enable an intuitive interpretation of the results.

Conclusions

We call for the LCIA research community to make progress towards enabling harmonization of damage-level indicators within the ecosystem quality AoP and, further, to improve the ecological relevance of impact indicators.

     

Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment Within LCA (11 pp)

Background, Aim and Scope Land use by agriculture, forestry, mining, house-building or industry leads to substantial impacts, particularly on biodiversity and on soil quality as a supplier of life support functions. Unfortunately there is no widely accepted assessment method so far for land use impacts. This paper presents an attempt, within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, to provide a framework for the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of land use. Materials and Methods: This framework builds from previous documents, particularly the SETAC book on LCIA (Lindeijer et al. 2002), developing essential issues such as the reference for occupation impacts; the impact pathways to be included in the analysis; the units of measure in the impact mechanism (land use interventions to impacts); the ways to deal with impacts in the future; and bio-geographical differentiation. Results: The paper describes the selected impact pathways, linking the land use elementary flows (occupation; transformation) and parameters (intensity) registered in the inventory (LCI) to the midpoint impact indicators and to the relevant damage categories (natural environment and natural resources). An impact occurs when the land properties are modified (transformation) and also when the current man-made properties are maintained (occupation). Discussion: The size of impact is the difference between the effect on land quality from the studied case of land use and a suitable reference land use on the same area (dynamic reference situation). The impact depends not only on the type of land use (including coverage and intensity) but is also heavily influenced by the bio-geographical conditions of the area. The time lag between the land use intervention and the impact may be large; thus land use impacts should be calculated over a reasonable time period after the actual land use finishes, at least until a new steady state in land quality is reached. Conclusions: Guidance is provided on the definition of the dynamic reference situation and on methods and time frame to assess the impacts occurring after the actual land use. Including the occupation impacts acknowledges that humans are not the sole users of land. Recommendations and Perspectives: The main damages affected by land use that should be considered by any method to assess land use impacts in LCIA are: biodiversity (existence value); biotic production potential (including soil fertility and use value of biodiversity); ecological soil quality (including life support functions of soil other than biotic production potential). Bio-geographical differentiation is required for land use impacts, because the same intervention may have different consequences depending on the sensitivity and inherent land quality of the environment where it occurs. For the moment, an indication of how such task could be done and likely bio-geographical parameters to be considered are suggested. The recommendation of indicators for the suggested impact categories is a matter of future research.     

Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose

In this paper, we summarize the discussion and present the findings of an expert group effort under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative proposing natural resources as an Area of Protection (AoP) in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).

Methods

As a first step, natural resources have been defined for the LCA context with reference to the overall UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) framework. Second, existing LCIA methods have been reviewed and discussed. The reviewed methods have been evaluated according to the considered type of natural resources and their underlying principles followed (use-to-availability ratios, backup technology approaches, or thermodynamic accounting methods).

Results and discussion

There is currently no single LCIA method available that addresses impacts for all natural resource categories, nor do existing methods and models addressing different natural resource categories do so in a consistent way across categories. Exceptions are exergy and solar energy-related methods, which cover the widest range of resource categories. However, these methods do not link exergy consumption to changes in availability or provisioning capacity of a specific natural resource (e.g., mineral, water, land etc.). So far, there is no agreement in the scientific community on the most relevant type of future resource indicators (depletion, increased energy use or cost due to resource extraction, etc.). To address this challenge, a framework based on the concept of stock/fund/flow resources is proposed to identify, across natural resource categories, whether depletion/dissipation (of stocks and funds) or competition (for flows) is the main relevant aspect.

Conclusions

An LCIA method—or a set of methods—that consistently address all natural resource categories is needed in order to avoid burden shifting from the impact associated with one resource to the impact associated with another resource. This paper is an important basis for a step forward in the direction of consistently integrating the various natural resources as an Area of Protection into LCA.

     

Streamlined LCA of soy-based ink printing

This study provides a benchmark of the life cycle environmental impact characteristics associated with a typical soybased ink used for sheetfed lithographic printing. The scope ineluded a streamlined Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Impact Assessment (LCIA). Materials, processes, and life cycle stages that are the same between different printing inks, or were less than one percent by mass of the printing system input materials, were excluded. The LCIA included identification of specific processes in the life cycle of soy-based ink printing that make the greatest contribution to the overall environmental hazard potential in 13 impact categories for the baseline printing system selected. The LCIA approach included both regional scaling for areas that differ in sensitivity to certain impact indicators and normalization against a reference value. Reduction in the use of tall oil rosin and switching from conventional to low or no-till farming appear to be promising opportunities for reducing the environmental hazard potential.     

Decision Analysis Utilizing Data from Multiple Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methods Part I: A Theoretical Basis

Numerous methodologies for the life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) step of life-cycle assessment (LCA) are currently in popular use. These methods, which are based on a single method or level of analysis, are limited to the environmental fates, impact categories, damage functions, and stressors included in the method or model. Because of this, it has been suggested within the LCA community that LCIA data from multiple methods and/or levels of analysis, that is, end-point and midpoint indicators, be used in LCA-based decision analysis to facilitate better or, at least more informed, decision making. In this (two-part) series of articles, we develop and present a series of LCA-based decision analysis models, based on multiattribute value theory (MAVT), which utilize data from multiple LCIA methods and/or levels of analysis. The key to accomplishing this is the recognition of what LCIA damage indicators represent with respect to decision analysis, namely, decision attributes and, in most cases, proxy attributes. The use of proxy attributes in a decision model, however, poses certain challenges, such as the assessment of decision-maker preferences for actual consequences that are only known imprecisely because of inherent limits of both LCA and scientific knowledge. In this article (part I), we provide a brief overview of MAVT and examine some of the decision-theoretic issues and implications of current LCIA methods. We illustrate the application of MAVT to develop a decision model utilizing damage indicators from a single LCIA methodology; and, we identify the decision-theoretic issues that arise when attempting to combine LCIA indicators from multiple methods and/or levels of analysis in a single decision model. Finally, we introduce the use in our methodology of constructed attributes to combine related end-point damage indicators into single decision attributes and the concept and evaluation of proxy attributes.     

Weighting in Life Cycle assessments in a global context

The option of weighting impact categories according to ISO 14042 on Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is particularly difficult for global organizations, as they have to consider a wide range of values. The motivation for employing weighting is usually based on the desire to simplify LCIA output, especially in circumstances where product system tradeoffs occur. Looking globally at regional variations in legislation, consumer values, monetary valuation, existing weighting sets and expert opinions, no globally agreed upon weighting set is likely to be derived. This is due to both the inherent subjectivity of weighting and local variations in environmental imperatives. Hence, the authors recommend that LCIA quantitative weighting, especially those provided in pre-packaged software instruments, should not be employed. Admittedly, to use a spectrum of LCIA results for internal design decisions, some kind of tradeoff analysis has to be performed, especially if comparing competing design alternatives. However, this trade-off analysis should be done separately from the technical LCA study and should reflect values and visions of the global organization, as well as the circumstances of the targeted market, in a qualitative way. For any external communication, none of the quantitative weighting sets can be used.     

Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment?

In a recent letter to the editor, Jørgensen et al. questioned that life cycle costing (LCC) is relevant in life cycle-based sustainability assessment (LCSA). They hold the opinion that environmental and social aspects are sufficient. We argue that sustainability has three dimensions: environment, economy, and social aspects in accordance with the well-accepted “three pillar interpretation” of sustainability, although this is not verbally stated in the Brundtland report (WCED 1987). An analysis of the historical development of the term “sustainability” shows that the economic and social component have been present from the beginning and conclude that LCSA of product systems can be approximated by LCSA = (environmental) LCA + (environmental) LCC + S-LCA where S-LCA stands for social LCA. The “environmental” LCC is fully compatible with life cycle assessment (LCA), the internationally standardized (ISO 14040 + 14044) method for environmental product assessment. For LCC, a SETAC “Code of Practice” is now available and guidelines for S-LCA have been published by UNEP/SETAC. First examples for the use of these guidelines have been published. An important practical argument for using LCC from the customers’ point of view is that environmentally preferable products often have higher purchasing costs, whereas the LCC may be much lower (examples: energy saving light bulbs, low energy houses, and cars). Also, since LCC allows an assessment for different actor perspectives, the producers may try to keep the total costs from their perspective below those of a conventional product: otherwise, it will not succeed at the market, unless highly subsidized. Those are practical aspects whichfinally decide about success or failure of “sustainable” products. Whether or not an analysis using all three aspects is necessary will depend on the exact question. However, if real money flows are important in sustainability analysis of product systems, inclusion of LCC is advisable.     

Evaluation of Ecotoxicity Effect Indicators for Use in LCIA (10+4 pp)

Goal, Scope and Background The paper describes different ecotoxicity effect indicator methods/approaches. The approaches cover three main groups, viz. PNEC approaches, PAF approaches and damage approaches. Ecotoxicity effect indicators used in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) are typically modelled to the level of impact, indicating the potential impact on 'ecosystem health'. The few existing indicators, which are modelled all the way to damage, are poorly developed, and even though relevant alternatives from risk assessment exist (e.g. recovery time and mean extinction time), these are unfortunately at a very early stage of development, and only few attempts have been made to include them in LCIA. Methods The approaches are described and evaluated against a set of assessment criteria comprising compatibility with the methodological requirements of LCIA, environmental relevance, reproducibility, data demand, data availability, quantification of uncertainty, transparency and spatial differentiation. Results and Discussion The results of the evaluation of the two impact approaches (i.e. PNEC and PAF) show both pros and cons for each of them. The assessment factor-based PNEC approaches have a low data demand and use only the lowest data (e.g. lowest NOEC value). Because it is developed in tiered risk assessment, and hence makes use of conservative assessment factors, it is not optimal, in its present form, to use in the comparative framework of LCIA, where best estimates are sought. The PAF approaches have a higher data demand but use all data and can be based on effect data (PNEC is no-effect-based), thus making these approaches non-conservative and more suitable for LCIA. However, indiscriminate use of ecotoxicity data tends to make the PAF-approaches no more environmentally relevant than the assessment factor-based PNEC approaches. The PAF approaches, however, can at least in theory be linked to damage modelling. All the approaches for damage modelling which are included here have a high environmental relevance but very low data availability, apart from the 'media recovery-approach', which depends directly on the fate model. They are all at a very early stage of development. Conclusion Recommendations and Outlook. An analysis of the different PAF approaches shows that the crucial point is according to which principles and based on which data the hazardous concentration to 50% of the included species (i.e. HC50) is estimated. The ability to calculate many characterisation factors for ecotoxicity is important for this impact category to be included in LCIA in a proper way. However, the access to effect data for the relevant chemicals is typically limited. So, besides the coupling to damage modelling, the main challenge within the further development and improvement of ecotoxicity effect indicators is to find an optimal method to estimate HC50 based on little data.     

Addressing water needs of freshwater ecosystems in life cycle impact assessment of water consumption: state of the art and applicability of ecohydrological approaches to ecosystem quality characterization

Purpose

In recent history, human development overbalanced towards economic growth has often been accompanied by the degradation and reduction of freshwater resources at the expense of freshwater dependent ecosystems. For their subsistence and correct functioning, understanding environmental water requirements (EWR) represents an area of great interest for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and it has been only marginally explored. The aim of this paper is to investigate how this concept has evolved in ecological and hydrological literature and how it can be better integrated in LCIA, to identify potential options for improvement of LCIA indicators in the short, mid and long term.

Methods

To address the limitations of existing LCIA approaches in modelling EWR, four families of EWR methods have been reviewed, namely hydrological, hydraulic, habitat simulation and holistic methods. Based on existing scientific literature and their broad application, 24 methods have been selected and their suitability to be adopted in LCIA has been evaluated against nine criteria, with regard to data management issues, accuracy, scientific robustness, and potential for future development. A semi-quantitative performance score has been subsequently assigned for each criterion, showing the main strengths and weaknesses of selected methods.

Results and discussion

The underlying rationale of the chosen approaches is markedly different, likewise the input information needed and results applicability. Hydrological methods are well suited for the development of global models and they are the only ones currently considered in LCIA, although their applicability remains limited to water stress indicators. Habitat modelling is identified as an essential step for the development of mechanistic LCIA models and endpoint indicators. In this respect, hydraulic, habitat simulation and holistic methods are fit for the purpose. However, habitat simulation methods represent the best compromise between scientific robustness and applicability in LCIA. For this reason, a conceptual framework for the development of habitat-based characterization factors has been proposed. Among the evaluated habitat simulation methods, ESTIMHAB showed the best performance and was the method retained for the development of an LCIA model that will assess the consequences of water consumption on stream ecosystems.

Conclusions

This study identifies the advantages of specific modelling approaches for the assessment of water requirements for ecosystems. Selected methods could support the development of LCIA models at different levels. In the short-term for improving environmental relevance of water stress indicators, and in the mid/long-term to build up midpoint habitat indicators relating water needs of ecosystems with new endpoint metrics.

     

Life cycle management: UNEP-workshop

On August 30, 2001, the first in a series of planned global workshops on Life Cycle Management was organized in Copenhagen by UNEP in cooperation with dk-TEKNIK. The workshop provided an international forum to share experiences on LCM. The specific purpose of the workshop was to define the focus of a possible UNEP programme on Life Cycle Management under the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Life Cycle Management has been defined by the SETAC Europe Working Group on LCM as an integrated framework of concepts, techniques and procedures to address environmental, economic, technological and social aspects of products and organizations to achieve continuous environmental improvement from a life cycle perspective. Life Cycle Management has been requested as an additional component for the Life Cycle Initiative by business organizations as well as governments in order to provide practical approaches for management systems in this area. The breakout groups of the workshop focussed on the role of integrating environmental management practices, concepts and tools in a life cycle perspective, on the integration of socio-economic aspects of sustainability in life cycle approaches, including the definition of adequate indicators for these aspects, on the communication strategies to promote life cycle thinking, and on the demand side of LCA. The workshop closed with a consensus that the UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative should really include a programme on Life Cycle Management with the proposed areas of work. UNEP in cooperation with SETAC should function as a global catalyser of knowledge transfer and cooperation on life cycle approaches. The key issue behind all activities would be the promotion of Life Cycle Thinking since all break-out groups mentioned the importance of well-prepared communication strategies. Another interesting outcome of the workshop is the clear interest of different stakeholders in the consideration of social and institutional effects of products, in addition to environmental and economic impacts, i.e. a sustainable development perspective.